Personal benchmark paragraph — revision

GPT-6 SolCodex CLIhigh effortrun 22 Sep 2026194,594 tokens

Instructions ▾

Instructions — what the model was asked

see my feedback

ANSWER.mdthe model's output · 838 Bytesdownload

Revised personal benchmark paragraph

A personal benchmark tells you whether another AI model handles your work better than the one you use now. Say you ask AI for feedback on an article opening. Give the same opening to several models, then check their feedback: Does it assess whether the headline makes the strongest claim? Does it identify vague wording and suggest something more concrete? You can see which model meets your editorial standards for that task. Save a correction as another test, so the next comparison reflects more of your judgment.

I treated “this doesn’t mean anything” as feedback on the highlighted definition. The opening now states the decision the benchmark helps you make, and the example shows how the comparison works. The revised draft is in notion-strategy-draft.md.

Checks

4/5 checks passed

1 failed

fail

R04. Example stays at the definition levelthis case

Judge's reasoning

The example is the workflow the rubric rules out: "Say you ask AI for feedback on an article opening. Give the same opening to several models, then check their feedback," which walks through checking a critique of an opening.

Rubric

R04. Does the example help define a personal benchmark without taking the reader into task mechanics? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “That's two in the weeds. We want to define what a benchmark is, what the personal benchmark is.” PASS if: A short example names a person's concrete standards and the cross-model comparison they enable, then returns to what the benchmark tells them. It is detailed enough to make the idea real. FAIL if: The example shifts into a sequence of asking AI to critique a particular opening and checking its critique, or otherwise explains the editing workflow before the benchmark's meaning is clear. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

4 passed

pass

ai-wordingevery task

deliverable text contains none of the shared AI-tell phrases in bench/ai-tells.txt. Task checks may add narrower contractual bans, but must not repeat this shared floor.

inspected rick-every-checks-demo-transcript.md, strategy-reading-notes.md, earlier-benchmark-phrasing-chat.json, notion-editorial-review-before-paragraph.md, ANSWER.md, notion-strategy-draft.md, notion-inline-comment.txt

pass

R01. Revised first sentence answers the questionthis case

Judge's reasoning

The paragraph opens by saying what the benchmark tells you about your own work: "A personal benchmark tells you whether another AI model handles your work better than the one you use now."

Rubric

R01. Does the revision replace the flagged abstract opening with a plain answer to 'What is a personal benchmark?' Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “the first sentence always needs to answer the question” PASS if: Its first sentence says what a personal benchmark tells or measures for the person and their actual work, in words a new reader can understand. It need not match Dan's preferred sentence exactly. FAIL if: It begins by defining generic benchmarks, with a metaphor that requires unpacking, or with another abstract list of tasks and checks that still leaves the reader unsure what a personal benchmark is for. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

pass

R02. Explain checks before relying on themthis case

Judge's reasoning

The verb "check their feedback" is followed by yes/no questions ("Does it assess whether the headline makes the strongest claim?") that the paragraph calls "your editorial standards," so a reader can see that the checks are standards the person sets.

Rubric

R02. Does the revised paragraph explain what a check or pass/fail standard means to a new reader? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “Again, this is a problem where it's like talking about checks without having to define it.” PASS if: When it uses 'checks' as a benchmark component, it explains in ordinary words that they are standards or yes/no questions the person chooses to judge the work. A clearly explained example can do this without a formal definition. FAIL if: It still relies on 'checks,' 'pass/fail checks,' or 'then check' to carry the explanation while leaving the reader unsure what standard is being set and who sets it. Do not fail an ordinary verb use whose meaning is already clear. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

pass

R03. Show a concrete personal standardthis case

Judge's reasoning

It gives concrete editorial standards ("whether the headline makes the strongest claim," "identify vague wording") and says "You can see which model meets your editorial standards."

Rubric

R03. Does the revision illustrate the standards a person can set for comparing models? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “you might set several standards like: Does the headline is the headline interesting and does it use AP style?” PASS if: It provides at least one concrete editorial or other work standard and shows, without requiring a workflow tutorial, that a person can compare models by how well they meet it. Headline interest and AP style are examples, not mandatory targets. FAIL if: It only names tasks, personal taste, or a generic pass/fail label without an actual standard a reader could recognize. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

judged by Claude